Edward E. Allen v. Oregon State

974 F.2d 1341 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward E. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-36353. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 24, 1992. * Decided Aug. 31, 1992. Before BRUNETTI, RYMER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edward E. Allen, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm. 3 A state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b), (c); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam); Lindquist v. Gardner, 770 F.2d 876, 877 (9th Cir.1985). 4 Allen concedes that he has failed to exhaust his state…